Heartland Insider Exposes Institute's Budget and Strategy

An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self “Heartland Insider” has released the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, its Climate Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against the organization.

It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and “other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.” Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

Heartland also continues to collect money from Philip Morris parent company Altria as well as from the tobacco giant Reynolds American, while maintaining ongoing advocacy against policies related to smoking and health.

Heartland's policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a “think tank” - it budgets $4.1 million of its $6.4 million in projected expenditures for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.

There will be more comment and analysis to follow on DeSmogBlog and elsewhere, but we wanted to make this information available so that others can also scrutinize the documents and bring their expertise to the task.

Comments

The exposure of these documents confirm what climate realists/scientists have been saying for many years about the source of climate denial, and that the people pushing denier talking points are doing so for money. This money comes largely from the fossil fuel industry, which this further proves.

The “Climategate” emails, whose motivated misinterpretation and attendant media blitz was *successful* at creating additional climate denialism, and importantly, gave politicians political cover to avoid climate legislation/renewable energy support. It was a case study of the powers of modern PR and misinformation, and just how effectively a lie can be made to persuade and effect policy.

These Heartland docs *should* be a very effective weapon to shut down climate denier arguments, disbar the media credentials of paid climate deniers everywhere, and demonstrate the sophistication and dishonesty of the PR machine that climate scientists are up against. It truly is a test of whether or not scientists and honest/objective media brokers will ever be able to turn the tide in the climate messaging/media fight. This is a rare gift, and I hope to see the same strength and media brilliance employed in its dissemination as we all had to witness and endure during the “climategate” media blitz.

Hopefully this episode becomes branded with a catchy name, which can then be neatly invoked forevermore to call to mind the devious and fraudulent nature of climate denial. You know, sort of like all manner of conservatives attempt when mentioning “climategate”. Please do better than “Heartlandgate”, though.

I’m looking through the fundraising plan and it appears to indicate an astroturfing operation regarding fracking on page 19. What does GR stand for anyone? In fact what does PR stand for too?

Heartland has been one of the most outspoken defenders of fracking in the U.S., using Environment & Climate News, its Web sites, and its PR and GR operations to comment repeated on the issue and reach large audiences.

You, Greenpeace, NRDC, Sierra, etc. will be the only outfits who lose in all this. Heartland has done absolutely nothing you and Greenpeace, NRDC and Sierra haven’t done, only with a fraction of the budget and absent the support of the left-leaning mainstream media.

a) it’s farcical to suggest that Heartland, with a budget of under $7 million (and many fish to fry with that budget other than “climate change”) is a threat to the propaganda machines of Greenpeace, NRDC, Sierra, etc., all of whom have budgets 15-50 times the size of Heartland. Anyone with a brain sees these figures and asks themselves “who is really influencing public opinion here?” (and that’s before they ask themselves the source of this funding!)

b) AGW Thermageddonists, like yourself, will do virtually anything to keep the eco-socialist policy prescriptions and the funding mechanisms alive.

For a look at how this ultimately ends, I highly recommend you research the history of the earth-centric view of the universe, Copernicus, and Galileo.

You and the AGW Thermageddonists are the modern equivalent of the Catholic Church.

Answer me this question: what good could have been done for human health and the environment with the $100 BILLION the U.S. govt. has wasted on “climate policy” since 1999? And before you go suggesting that’s a made-up number spouted by Heartland or Rush Limbaugh, I’ll save you from yourselves: it is an Obama administration Congressional Budget Office figure.

As I’ve said… this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that is absolutely clear from the evidence in hand.

Mr. Big Mysterious Donor has given money to have education modules written. Mr Big Mysterious Donor is going to take care of getting the education modules into the hands of teachers via some undisclosed entity.

So, Heartland Institute is just one of many organizations being used as a front to push a propoganda regime on the US. (And indeed the world.)

And you and I have NOCLUE how much money is really getting funneled into this agenda. We only know there is more. Lots more.

Stop trying to confuse the matter by talking about a bunch of eco nuts. Desmogblog isn’t Greenpeace, NRDC, Sierra, etc. its Desmogblog. These guys are the ones you are attacking and selling FUD about, so stay on topic;

The actual three parents Testking 640-802 turned down to be able to mail the children to be able to such schools after the 8th quality, quarrelling that school presence has been despite the spiritual beliefs. Demonology.

Vaccination programs and distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of communicable diseases are examples of common preventive public measures, as are educational campaigns to promote vaccination and the use of condoms. Thanks.

Secondary care is the health care services provided by medical specialists and other health professionals who generally do not have first contact with patients, for example, cardiologists, urologists and dermatologists. Thanks a lot.
Regards, http://www.reinventingaging.org/diet/sensa/sensa/

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE